Young people in good health, with good motor skills and high response time are the worst drivers, right?
The precise shape of the curve isn't 100% clear; but new drivers are shitty drivers. It takes time to accumulate the experience that weak hominids need to respond automatically to common situations that are at or beyond the edge of being slow enough to respond to by conscious thought.(inconveniently, since the problem is inexperience rather than merely youth raising the starting driver's age helps less than people would like.
Once they get some experience, young drivers are better than older drivers; because their vision, reflexes, and motor skills are superior, and the amount of additional improvement possible from additional experience tapers off.
From there, it's all downhill; but old people vote at substantial rates compared to the population at large, so they are less likely to be taken off the road.
Military pilots -- flying multi-million dollar machines loaded with all kinds of nasty stuff -- don't have a problem with heads-up displays and helmet-mounted sights. These are considered to be useful tools. Why doesn't glass fall into the same category? Maybe a driving app coupled to a sensor suite on a car?
I suspect that the delta between passing a driver's test and being declared flight-ready for 30 million taxpayer dollars with added explosives has something to do with it...
The fact that military HUDs don't tend to have twitter clients or porn playback support might also be a difference.
...I'd say the lawmaker was worried about the possibility of the Google Glass user recording what transpires at a traffic stop.
Good thing I'm not paranoid.
Given that dash cams are 100% legal and start at under $100(typically slightly over if you want GPS included), I'd say that your paranoia needs to use Occam's razor a bit more frequently...
A device with a cell connection is somewhat more likely to get footage offsite even if you end up assaulting the officer's fist with your face, repeatedly; but you could plaster a car with dash-cams(including the flavor that has the camera module connected by a video cable to a recording box embedded deeper in the vehicle), for the price of a single head-mount unit.
I agree that specific-banning every incremental innovation is ugly lawmaking practice(it isn't wrong or unethical in any serious way; but a legal code full of a fuckton of pointless special cases that could have been generalized is no prettier than any other codebase so afflicted).
However, I'm not with you on the 'All HUDs are created equal" thing. In-car HUDs, while dubiously valuable, have the advantage of being built into cars, with 100% certainty that their users will be driving cars while using them. There is an established body of work on building car controls that are minimally distracting to drivers(sometimes it is even adhered to!). A car HUD is much more likely to adhere to that than is a generic HUD doing god-knows-what.
Now, nothing prevents a generic HUD from running a set of software displays that would actually be useful to a driver(so banning them in general seems pointless and possibly counterproductive); but it is fair to treat a device that evolved out of the hardware, and use cases, of a smartphone as being distracting until proven innocent...
I can get around the start menu, I can get around the interface changes, I can even deal with the "control panel" not remembering my settings (I always have to select small icons), but until they fix Windows 8 to enable the reason for Windows existance, easy interface for multi-tasking... then they can literally fuck off.
Dude, why would you possibly expect 'Microsoft Windows' to handle window management? And why would you want window management, and multiple monitors and stuff, when you could be squinting around your thumbs on a 10 inch tablet? Get with the Future!
The fact that having multiple monitors is cheaper and easier than it has ever been isn't a good thing, it's a temptation designed to corrupt and destroy the weak minded. Resist, brother, and embrace the all-full-screen-all-the-time-for-fuck-knows-what-reason future!
Something like this should never have gotten through testing. Samsung must have tested using only a single OS or a closely related family (ie, Windows) - and that is no way to test if a piece of code is going to behave under all circumstances.
Something like this should never have gotten through design. "Oh, I'm sure nothing will actually try to store nearly as much data in the nonvolatile storage region as the system offers to store, it'll be fine!" is Not a valid plan. Obviously, any finite storage device cannot fulfill arbitrary storage demands; but that's why you have a graceful way of saying 'sorry, no more space', rather than silently accepting the attempt and then falling over dead.
It was probably very well intentioned - to avoid the UEFI partition becoming full and causing errors.
Are you not seeing the insanity of avoiding errors caused by being 100% full by bricking the device at 50% full?
More broadly, for what possible reason would Samsung handle UEFI storage in such a fucked-up way? How many decades now have we had computers with some sort of mass-storage device that had to be treated sanely?
There is nothing whatsoever preventing people from starting an arbitrary number of distinct chains(indeed, there was a bug not long ago that accidentally bifurcated things, until one fork was quashed). However, unlike conventional counterfeits, you can't pretend that a bitcoin from chain A is actually a bitcoin from chain B or the reverse. Since each chain contains a finite(and, even with divisibility not all that large) number of the things, and data loss fuckups will probably reduce the number over time, there probably will be pressure to adopt new chains over time, if anybody ends up caring about the currency. I'm sure that they 'mathematically assured deflation' gives some curious subspecies of currency theorists or other a hard-on; but it doesn't seem to be terribly popular in real world currencies(even metallic standards are generally based on metals that are mined faster than they are used).
Saying 'a bitcoin' is sort of like saying 'a dollar printed in 1990', except mathematically impossible to lie. There are only so many, and will never be any more, of those; but you can have as many distinct chains as you want, and can either try to hold them at parity or let them float.
No matter what you trade, if it has value, the state will look to control it's function.
So far, the main entanglements seem to occur because people what their bitcoins to be exchangeable with other currencies, particularly USD. Whether or not you think they are a terrible idea, the (copious) regulations that (sometimes, if you aren't big and important enough) cover bank-like institutions that deal in transactions large enough to be of money laundering concern aren't exactly new or surprising.
It would be a bit more novel if they were to go after bitcoin-only transactions floating around in the aether; but if the bitcoin system is going to link to conventional currencies, it isn't a huge surprise that regulations from conventional currencies will start to apply at those links. Not wholly unlike connecting a VOIP system to the local POTS. There are some ghastly hellholes where the VOIP simply isn't legal at all(though fewer of those can back it up); but a lot more where you can do whatever you damn well please so long as it's VOIP only; but once you start interconnecting with the POTS system, you get all the exciting legacy regulations associated with the incumbent copper for the last 50 years.
I wasn't real thrilled with the idea at first due to concerns around the integrity of the system, but then I imagined them working from a remote town hall and surrounded by their constituents instead of their peers and lobbyies. I think it could do great things for establishing accountability.
You wouldn't want them skyping in from their random porn-browsing PCs or anything like that; but if you can't get a fixed-function videoconferencing link and VPN appliance setup for each congresscritter for a relatively modest amount of money(by enterprise IT standards) the state of network security is so fucked that we have deeper problems. Plus, a substantial percentage of congressional activity is banal shit that ends up being televised on CSPAN anyway. If they occasionally have to fly in for a session in the lead-lined congressional intelligence committee bunker, so be it.
That's actually much of the problem. Sure, it isn't worth denying that elected office gets more vacation time than a lot of peons do; but if you want to stay elected you are lucky if 'whoring for votes and cash' occupies only 25% of your time in office. That isn't the work we want them do be doing; but there are very, very, strong perverse incentives in favor of people in office running around hugging babies and schmoozing with lobbyists rather than actually working.
It isn't clear that you'll hit the bar for perjury by doing just about anything related to DMCA takedowns; but the US District Court specificially agreed with Lenz's lawyer that fair use is one of the elements that the copyright holder must consider in order to file a takedown request meeting the standards set out by the DMCA:
(Quoted from pages 5-6 of the above):
"Fair Use and 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)(v).
When interpreting a statute, a court must begin “with the language of the statute and ask whether Congress has spoken on the subject before [it].” Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. v. American Train Dispatchers Ass’n, 499 U.S. 117, 128 (1991). If “Congress has made its intent clear, [the court] must give effect to that intent.” Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 336 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the Court concludes that the plain meaning of “authorized by law” is unambiguous. An activity or behavior “authorized by law” is one permitted by law or not contrary to law. Though Congress did not expressly mention the fair use doctrine in the DMCA, the Copyright Act provides explicitly that “the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright.” 17 U.S.C. 107. Even if Universal is correct that fair use only excuses infringement, the fact remains that fair use is a lawful use of a copyright.4 Accordingly, in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with “a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,” the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright. 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)(v). An allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine thus is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim pursuant to Section 512(f) of the DMCA.
The Supreme Court also has held consistently that fair use is not infringement of a copyright. See e.g., Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 433 (1984) (“[a]nyone . . . who makes a fair use of the work is not an infringer of the copyright with respect to such use.”). "
Since the boundaries of fair use are not terribly clearly defined, it could easily be the case that a DMCA takedown is judged to not be a 'misrepresentation' under Section 512(f); but that a counterclaim on fair use grounds could still end up being accepted. However, the courts have apparently decided that, while they may be the ones to step in on disputes over whether something is fair use, 'fair use' is something that you have to take into account to file a valid DMCA takedown. Not that this has had much deterrent effect in practice, of course.
I was interested in a GoPro as well, but I just can't give money to Sony. Looks like I'll need to find something else.
"Action cameras" are an increasingly crowded segment. Heck, Monoprice, the guys who sell reasonably-priced HDMI cables and such, have released a house-branded one. That's part of why GoPro courting bad PR seems so insane: Right now, they have a pretty dominant brand; but it isn't as though shoving some cellphone parts into a ruggedized case is exactly a proprietary super-secret lost art of master craftsmanship. It seems... foolish... to squander a lead by looking like total dickheads in public.
Trouble is, unless you are paying rather more for hosting than the market rate, or deliberately purchasing capacity in some high-ping(relative to most of your readers) country outside the reach of the US, I suspect that your business just isn't worth enough to risk any significant legal exposure, and quite possibly not even enough to pay for a legal consultation before just obeying the takedown.
As far as I know, you can't use the DMCA for trademark infringement. They should have hired a lawyer.
Given that the site's host folded like a house of cards, apparently you can use the DMCA for trademark infringement... It's just that doing so isn't supported by the DMCA or anything else.
It seems like a hilariously lousy PR move(especially for a company who, let's face it, is in a market that is highly likely to be commodified pretty hard); but it(yet again) establishes that you can scribble anything you want on a 'DMCA takedown request' and find somebody in the chain who will roll over and wet themselves, no matter how risible your legal standing.
Isn't there some sort of purjury thing for filing false DMCA claims?
Lenz v. Universal suggests that there are theoretically penalties for bad-faith filing of false claims; but that particular result also took on the order of five years of litigation(only possible if you are an EFF test case or made of money), and didn't actually include any punishment for Universal, so practice suggests that there are no penalties whatsoever.
I do not see how this is possible without changing the laws of the universe. Maybe some marketing person just decided they can re-define what 3D means.
It's far, far, far, worse than that: HP did discover how to change the laws of the universe; but the best use that their marketing people could think of was '3d TV'.
Where can I pre-order my opt-out of all this 3D tech?
I remember that scene from Back to the Future II all too well, thank-you-very-much!:P
Apply to least-favored eye, starting just within the ridge of bone surrounding the orbit, and moving inward and down in a smooth enucleating motion. Avoid exposing delicate fabrics or electronic devices to aqueous and/or vitreous humors that may be released under pressure.
When you say 'vibration can be felt' do you mean 'detected by human senses' or 'detectable'? A busybody with a good optical interferometer could have a field day with the latter interpretation...
Even if your thesis were correct, extraction industries are among the least compelling examples you could choose:
Historically, even your hardcore actually-in-Soviet-Russia-not-as-in-joking-about-it communists successfully managed to run big mining and drilling towns(if anything, more people might have been employed due to questionable capital allocation and lower available tech levels). Minerals are like nature's subsidies, you can get net-positive energy output just for digging a hole in the ground! If the situation is structured so that you don't internalize the externalities, even better.
There are a few ways to fuck up a local extraction boom: if the resource in question doesn't ship well, you are at the mercy of regional demand and sometimes things are so bad that people just don't want what you dig up. If the resource does ship well, you can end up with a situation where(by either market or state coercion, it's been done both ways) the locals end up living in the tailings pile and the surplus value gets shipped out(see also Appalachian coal country, the Niger Delta, Zambian central province, etc.). Finally, you can either exhaust your mine, or get scooped by somebody else who has a much higher quality one(England, for instance, isn't exactly a coal-mining power anymore).
If you want to talk the virtues of capitalist enterprise, try something with a much more complex supply chain, returns to innovation, need for a keen grasp of customer demands, and no history of communists pulling it off. Seriously.
I think the issue would be that the DMCA, unless substantially amended, would make first sale irrelevant, not that fancy-EULA-talk would eliminate first sale in theory:
If my DRM system is sufficiently robust that you would have to break it(either to transfer the file to the party you are selling to, or for the party you are selling to to read/execute the file), you can have your precious little 'first sale' rights, it's just that somebody still needs to commit a federal felony to make the goods sold actually worth more than $0 to anybody who I don't approve(since the value of an encrypted ebook you can't read, or software that won't run because the authentication server isn't giving it the thumbs up, isn't very high..)
Microsoft is sort of a funny one: their attempt to push Windows Mobile devices into Blackberry's market back in the day was largely a failure, and is totally dead now; but did manage to win 'Activesync' enough support among enterprise admins as the 'Hey guys! we are totally kinda, sorta, adequately endurable compared to BES!' alternative that devices from Apple and the droid crowd that support it were able to absolutely brutalize Blackberry in ways that Windows Mobile was never able to, and Windows Phone seems to be making a rather tepid attempt to.
Slashdot Mirror
Young people in good health, with good motor skills and high response time are the worst drivers, right?
The precise shape of the curve isn't 100% clear; but new drivers are shitty drivers. It takes time to accumulate the experience that weak hominids need to respond automatically to common situations that are at or beyond the edge of being slow enough to respond to by conscious thought.(inconveniently, since the problem is inexperience rather than merely youth raising the starting driver's age helps less than people would like.
Once they get some experience, young drivers are better than older drivers; because their vision, reflexes, and motor skills are superior, and the amount of additional improvement possible from additional experience tapers off.
From there, it's all downhill; but old people vote at substantial rates compared to the population at large, so they are less likely to be taken off the road.
Military pilots -- flying multi-million dollar machines loaded with all kinds of nasty stuff -- don't have a problem with heads-up displays and helmet-mounted sights. These are considered to be useful tools. Why doesn't glass fall into the same category? Maybe a driving app coupled to a sensor suite on a car?
I suspect that the delta between passing a driver's test and being declared flight-ready for 30 million taxpayer dollars with added explosives has something to do with it...
The fact that military HUDs don't tend to have twitter clients or porn playback support might also be a difference.
...I'd say the lawmaker was worried about the possibility of the Google Glass user recording what transpires at a traffic stop.
Good thing I'm not paranoid.
Given that dash cams are 100% legal and start at under $100(typically slightly over if you want GPS included), I'd say that your paranoia needs to use Occam's razor a bit more frequently...
A device with a cell connection is somewhat more likely to get footage offsite even if you end up assaulting the officer's fist with your face, repeatedly; but you could plaster a car with dash-cams(including the flavor that has the camera module connected by a video cable to a recording box embedded deeper in the vehicle), for the price of a single head-mount unit.
How would you enforce this law when the glasses could look like simple sunglasses? We've ventured into the realm of unnecessary laws.
How could you possibly ban drunk driving? You can't even smell alcohol through the windshield!
I agree that specific-banning every incremental innovation is ugly lawmaking practice(it isn't wrong or unethical in any serious way; but a legal code full of a fuckton of pointless special cases that could have been generalized is no prettier than any other codebase so afflicted).
However, I'm not with you on the 'All HUDs are created equal" thing. In-car HUDs, while dubiously valuable, have the advantage of being built into cars, with 100% certainty that their users will be driving cars while using them. There is an established body of work on building car controls that are minimally distracting to drivers(sometimes it is even adhered to!). A car HUD is much more likely to adhere to that than is a generic HUD doing god-knows-what.
Now, nothing prevents a generic HUD from running a set of software displays that would actually be useful to a driver(so banning them in general seems pointless and possibly counterproductive); but it is fair to treat a device that evolved out of the hardware, and use cases, of a smartphone as being distracting until proven innocent...
I can get around the start menu, I can get around the interface changes, I can even deal with the "control panel" not remembering my settings (I always have to select small icons), but until they fix Windows 8 to enable the reason for Windows existance, easy interface for multi-tasking... then they can literally fuck off.
Dude, why would you possibly expect 'Microsoft Windows' to handle window management? And why would you want window management, and multiple monitors and stuff, when you could be squinting around your thumbs on a 10 inch tablet? Get with the Future!
The fact that having multiple monitors is cheaper and easier than it has ever been isn't a good thing, it's a temptation designed to corrupt and destroy the weak minded. Resist, brother, and embrace the all-full-screen-all-the-time-for-fuck-knows-what-reason future!
Something like this should never have gotten through testing. Samsung must have tested using only a single OS or a closely related family (ie, Windows) - and that is no way to test if a piece of code is going to behave under all circumstances.
Something like this should never have gotten through design. "Oh, I'm sure nothing will actually try to store nearly as much data in the nonvolatile storage region as the system offers to store, it'll be fine!" is Not a valid plan. Obviously, any finite storage device cannot fulfill arbitrary storage demands; but that's why you have a graceful way of saying 'sorry, no more space', rather than silently accepting the attempt and then falling over dead.
It was probably very well intentioned - to avoid the UEFI partition becoming full and causing errors.
Are you not seeing the insanity of avoiding errors caused by being 100% full by bricking the device at 50% full?
More broadly, for what possible reason would Samsung handle UEFI storage in such a fucked-up way? How many decades now have we had computers with some sort of mass-storage device that had to be treated sanely?
There is nothing whatsoever preventing people from starting an arbitrary number of distinct chains(indeed, there was a bug not long ago that accidentally bifurcated things, until one fork was quashed). However, unlike conventional counterfeits, you can't pretend that a bitcoin from chain A is actually a bitcoin from chain B or the reverse. Since each chain contains a finite(and, even with divisibility not all that large) number of the things, and data loss fuckups will probably reduce the number over time, there probably will be pressure to adopt new chains over time, if anybody ends up caring about the currency. I'm sure that they 'mathematically assured deflation' gives some curious subspecies of currency theorists or other a hard-on; but it doesn't seem to be terribly popular in real world currencies(even metallic standards are generally based on metals that are mined faster than they are used).
Saying 'a bitcoin' is sort of like saying 'a dollar printed in 1990', except mathematically impossible to lie. There are only so many, and will never be any more, of those; but you can have as many distinct chains as you want, and can either try to hold them at parity or let them float.
No matter what you trade, if it has value, the state will look to control it's function.
So far, the main entanglements seem to occur because people what their bitcoins to be exchangeable with other currencies, particularly USD. Whether or not you think they are a terrible idea, the (copious) regulations that (sometimes, if you aren't big and important enough) cover bank-like institutions that deal in transactions large enough to be of money laundering concern aren't exactly new or surprising.
It would be a bit more novel if they were to go after bitcoin-only transactions floating around in the aether; but if the bitcoin system is going to link to conventional currencies, it isn't a huge surprise that regulations from conventional currencies will start to apply at those links. Not wholly unlike connecting a VOIP system to the local POTS. There are some ghastly hellholes where the VOIP simply isn't legal at all(though fewer of those can back it up); but a lot more where you can do whatever you damn well please so long as it's VOIP only; but once you start interconnecting with the POTS system, you get all the exciting legacy regulations associated with the incumbent copper for the last 50 years.
I wasn't real thrilled with the idea at first due to concerns around the integrity of the system, but then I imagined them working from a remote town hall and surrounded by their constituents instead of their peers and lobbyies. I think it could do great things for establishing accountability.
You wouldn't want them skyping in from their random porn-browsing PCs or anything like that; but if you can't get a fixed-function videoconferencing link and VPN appliance setup for each congresscritter for a relatively modest amount of money(by enterprise IT standards) the state of network security is so fucked that we have deeper problems. Plus, a substantial percentage of congressional activity is banal shit that ends up being televised on CSPAN anyway. If they occasionally have to fly in for a session in the lead-lined congressional intelligence committee bunker, so be it.
you know you can run for office, too?
That's actually much of the problem. Sure, it isn't worth denying that elected office gets more vacation time than a lot of peons do; but if you want to stay elected you are lucky if 'whoring for votes and cash' occupies only 25% of your time in office. That isn't the work we want them do be doing; but there are very, very, strong perverse incentives in favor of people in office running around hugging babies and schmoozing with lobbyists rather than actually working.
It isn't clear that you'll hit the bar for perjury by doing just about anything related to DMCA takedowns; but the US District Court specificially agreed with Lenz's lawyer that fair use is one of the elements that the copyright holder must consider in order to file a takedown request meeting the standards set out by the DMCA:
(Quoted from pages 5-6 of the above):
"Fair Use and 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)(v).
When interpreting a statute, a court must begin “with the language of the statute and ask
whether Congress has spoken on the subject before [it].” Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. v.
American Train Dispatchers Ass’n, 499 U.S. 117, 128 (1991). If “Congress has made its intent
clear, [the court] must give effect to that intent.” Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 336 (2000)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the Court concludes that the plain meaning
of “authorized by law” is unambiguous. An activity or behavior “authorized by law” is one
permitted by law or not contrary to law. Though Congress did not expressly mention the fair use
doctrine in the DMCA, the Copyright Act provides explicitly that “the fair use of a copyrighted work . . .
is not an infringement of copyright.” 17 U.S.C. 107. Even if Universal is correct that
fair use only excuses infringement, the fact remains that fair use is a lawful use of a copyright.4
Accordingly, in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with “a good faith
belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright
owner, its agent, or the law,” the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the
copyright. 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)(v). An allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith
by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine thus is
sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim pursuant to Section 512(f) of the DMCA.
The Supreme Court also has held consistently that fair use is not infringement of a
copyright. See e.g., Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 433
(1984) (“[a]nyone . . . who makes a fair use of the work is not an infringer of the copyright with
respect to such use.”). "
Since the boundaries of fair use are not terribly clearly defined, it could easily be the case that a DMCA takedown is judged to not be a 'misrepresentation' under Section 512(f); but that a counterclaim on fair use grounds could still end up being accepted. However, the courts have apparently decided that, while they may be the ones to step in on disputes over whether something is fair use, 'fair use' is something that you have to take into account to file a valid DMCA takedown. Not that this has had much deterrent effect in practice, of course.
I was interested in a GoPro as well, but I just can't give money to Sony. Looks like I'll need to find something else.
"Action cameras" are an increasingly crowded segment. Heck, Monoprice, the guys who sell reasonably-priced HDMI cables and such, have released a house-branded one. That's part of why GoPro courting bad PR seems so insane: Right now, they have a pretty dominant brand; but it isn't as though shoving some cellphone parts into a ruggedized case is exactly a proprietary super-secret lost art of master craftsmanship. It seems... foolish... to squander a lead by looking like total dickheads in public.
The host is explicitly identified as http://www.softlayer.com/ in the takedown request.
Trouble is, unless you are paying rather more for hosting than the market rate, or deliberately purchasing capacity in some high-ping(relative to most of your readers) country outside the reach of the US, I suspect that your business just isn't worth enough to risk any significant legal exposure, and quite possibly not even enough to pay for a legal consultation before just obeying the takedown.
As far as I know, you can't use the DMCA for trademark infringement. They should have hired a lawyer.
Given that the site's host folded like a house of cards, apparently you can use the DMCA for trademark infringement... It's just that doing so isn't supported by the DMCA or anything else.
It seems like a hilariously lousy PR move(especially for a company who, let's face it, is in a market that is highly likely to be commodified pretty hard); but it(yet again) establishes that you can scribble anything you want on a 'DMCA takedown request' and find somebody in the chain who will roll over and wet themselves, no matter how risible your legal standing.
Isn't there some sort of purjury thing for filing false DMCA claims?
Lenz v. Universal suggests that there are theoretically penalties for bad-faith filing of false claims; but that particular result also took on the order of five years of litigation(only possible if you are an EFF test case or made of money), and didn't actually include any punishment for Universal, so practice suggests that there are no penalties whatsoever.
I do not see how this is possible without changing the laws of the universe. Maybe some marketing person just decided they can re-define what 3D means.
It's far, far, far, worse than that: HP did discover how to change the laws of the universe; but the best use that their marketing people could think of was '3d TV'.
Where can I pre-order my opt-out of all this 3D tech?
I remember that scene from Back to the Future II all too well, thank-you-very-much! :P
Apply to least-favored eye, starting just within the ridge of bone surrounding the orbit, and moving inward and down in a smooth enucleating motion. Avoid exposing delicate fabrics or electronic devices to aqueous and/or vitreous humors that may be released under pressure.
That is not dead which can eternal lie
Yet with strange eons even death may die.
A bit more cryptic than Netcraft, honestly.
We can only hope that military are, in fact, less flexible on the matter than cops have proven to be...
When you say 'vibration can be felt' do you mean 'detected by human senses' or 'detectable'? A busybody with a good optical interferometer could have a field day with the latter interpretation...
Even if your thesis were correct, extraction industries are among the least compelling examples you could choose:
Historically, even your hardcore actually-in-Soviet-Russia-not-as-in-joking-about-it communists successfully managed to run big mining and drilling towns(if anything, more people might have been employed due to questionable capital allocation and lower available tech levels). Minerals are like nature's subsidies, you can get net-positive energy output just for digging a hole in the ground! If the situation is structured so that you don't internalize the externalities, even better.
There are a few ways to fuck up a local extraction boom: if the resource in question doesn't ship well, you are at the mercy of regional demand and sometimes things are so bad that people just don't want what you dig up. If the resource does ship well, you can end up with a situation where(by either market or state coercion, it's been done both ways) the locals end up living in the tailings pile and the surplus value gets shipped out(see also Appalachian coal country, the Niger Delta, Zambian central province, etc.). Finally, you can either exhaust your mine, or get scooped by somebody else who has a much higher quality one(England, for instance, isn't exactly a coal-mining power anymore).
If you want to talk the virtues of capitalist enterprise, try something with a much more complex supply chain, returns to innovation, need for a keen grasp of customer demands, and no history of communists pulling it off. Seriously.
I think the issue would be that the DMCA, unless substantially amended, would make first sale irrelevant, not that fancy-EULA-talk would eliminate first sale in theory:
If my DRM system is sufficiently robust that you would have to break it(either to transfer the file to the party you are selling to, or for the party you are selling to to read/execute the file), you can have your precious little 'first sale' rights, it's just that somebody still needs to commit a federal felony to make the goods sold actually worth more than $0 to anybody who I don't approve(since the value of an encrypted ebook you can't read, or software that won't run because the authentication server isn't giving it the thumbs up, isn't very high..)
Microsoft is sort of a funny one: their attempt to push Windows Mobile devices into Blackberry's market back in the day was largely a failure, and is totally dead now; but did manage to win 'Activesync' enough support among enterprise admins as the 'Hey guys! we are totally kinda, sorta, adequately endurable compared to BES!' alternative that devices from Apple and the droid crowd that support it were able to absolutely brutalize Blackberry in ways that Windows Mobile was never able to, and Windows Phone seems to be making a rather tepid attempt to.